From the beginning, starting with C/N 1201,

The source for references and discussion on all types & marques of this Grumman amphibian: photos, plans, manual pages & documents.

Re: From the beginning, starting with C/N 1201,

Postby MrWidgeon » Thu Mar 13, 2014 2:29 pm

Unless I misread my refs. the Seneca used the Lyc. 360 a 4 banger.
At any rate, the Cont. IO-360 was good for 260 hp, it was used in the McDermott and Franklin conversions.
IIRC, the Cont. O-360 was a 210 hp engine, McDermott tried it first in N86627 (cn1453), but they decided to go with the Injected version and grab another 50 hp.

Glad you found a POH, any other treasures in that box. ;)

Bill
In water flying attitude is everything
User avatar
MrWidgeon
 
Posts: 893
Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2009 8:48 am
Location: Idaho, USA

Re: From the beginning, starting with C/N 1201,

Postby mdwflyer » Thu Mar 13, 2014 4:09 pm

MrWidgeon wrote:Unless I misread my refs. the Seneca used the Lyc. 360 a 4 banger.
At any rate, the Cont. IO-360 was good for 260 hp, it was used in the McDermott and Franklin conversions.
IIRC, the Cont. O-360 was a 210 hp engine, McDermott tried it first in N86627 (cn1453), but they decided to go with the Injected version and grab another 50 hp.

Glad you found a POH, any other treasures in that box. ;)

Bill


Seneca I used the lycoming IO-360 (4 cyl), Seneca II through V used the continental IO-360 or TSIO-360 (6 cyl).

McDermott used the O-470 (240hp) initially in his conversion (Chester Lawson still uses that engine in 86638), later changing to the IO-470 (260hp).

Sometimes weird things happen in Alaska... "if" it is an IO-360, that engine is lighter than the ranger by 50 lbs, and it could also have counter rotating props like the magnum conversion. Would not be my first choice, but it could be interesting. I think I'll call the add this morning and see what's up there.

Mark
mdwflyer
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 8:41 pm

Re: From the beginning, starting with C/N 1201,

Postby Rajay » Thu Mar 13, 2014 6:35 pm

mdwflyer wrote:Seneca I used the lycoming IO-360 (4 cyl), Seneca II through V used the continental IO-360 or TSIO-360 (6 cyl).

McDermott used the O-470 (240hp) initially in his conversion (Chester Lawson still uses that engine in 86638), later changing to the IO-470 (260hp).

Sometimes weird things happen in Alaska... "if" it is an IO-360, that engine is lighter than the ranger by 50 lbs, and it could also have counter rotating props like the magnum conversion. Would not be my first choice, but it could be interesting. I think I'll call the add this morning and see what's up there.

Mark

Mark is essentially correct...

Seneca I (Piper PA-34-200) used the 4-banger Lycoming IO-360-C1E6 and counter-rotating LIO-360-C1E6 of 200 hp each - normally-aspirated.

All Seneca's since the 1 have used turbocharged Continental TSIO-360 series 6-cylinder engines (never any normally-aspirated, just plain IO-360 Continentals);
The Seneca II (Piper PA-34-200T) has just 200 hp L/TSIO-360-E or -EB (heavy crank) engines with a worthless, fixed-wastegate (think just a calibrated exhaust leak!) turbo system.
The Seneca III (Piper PA-34-220T) has more powerful 220 hp* Continental L/TSIO-360-KB engines, but were still equipped with junky, fixed-wastegate turbo systems. (*i.e. 220 hp for Take-off, limited to 5 minutes, but only 200 hp for continuous operation.)
The Seneca IV (still a Piper PA-34-220T) has the same engines as the III and most "differences" were just cosmetic touches on the airframe.
The Seneca V (also still technically a PA-34-220T) has 220 hp Continental L/TSIO-360-RB series engines which finally introduced automatic controllers for the wastegates on the turbos - and which are rated for 220 hp continuously.

What really strikes as more odd than anything else about this guy's conversion is that he seems to be keeping the huge round firewalls from the old 300 hp Lycoming R-680 radial engines! :shock:
Rajay
 
Posts: 391
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 6:07 pm
Location: The Southern Part of Heaven

Re: From the beginning, starting with C/N 1201,

Postby MrWidgeon » Fri Mar 14, 2014 2:22 am

That's what I get for trying to be coherent when I'm half asleep. (Connection failure between chair & keyboard)
Being raised in McDermott's hangar I KNEW they were IO-470s on the McD./Franklin conversions.
As for the IO-360, I'm lost, too many versions for this old fart to keep up with.
But I can't see why he'd go with a 220 hp engine on a boat like that, to me it doesn't make much sense.
Both McD. & Franklin started with 220 Cont.'s and quickly moved to higher horsepower.
If you kept it light it might (MIGHT) be okay, but most Widgeon owners want to load 'em up with too many trinkets.
Personally I think the eng. out performance would be a deal killer for me, I'd prefer something with more grunt out there.
Rajay, I suspect the plan was to cut those firewalls down or replace them eventually, if not all I see is a huge drag inducing hole with a little bitty engine in it.

I was talking to a buddy of mine about that SCAN, he knew the folks involved and was around right after it went into the trees.
He said it was a cockpit fire that caused the accident, a 24 volt wire rubbing on (wet) fuel pressure gauge tubing til it arced, burned a hole in the tubing and POOF !
In water flying attitude is everything
User avatar
MrWidgeon
 
Posts: 893
Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2009 8:48 am
Location: Idaho, USA

Re: From the beginning, starting with C/N 1201,

Postby Rajay » Fri Mar 14, 2014 2:59 pm

That explains all of the sheet metal removed around the cockpit...

As I may have mentioned here before, I'd love to see someone come up with an STC for a normally-aspirated 290-300 hp Lycoming IO-540 engine installation for the Widgeon - simpler and cheaper than the Magnum 350 hp turbo STC, but still with plenty of current support from the factory and overhaul shops everywhere! I've met a number of DER's over the past few years - maybe I'll have to enlist some help from one of them and do it myself!
Rajay
 
Posts: 391
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 6:07 pm
Location: The Southern Part of Heaven

Re: From the beginning, starting with C/N 1201,

Postby mdwflyer » Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:20 pm

The small engine conversion is interesting. Believe it or not, very similar numbers to the McKinnon GO-480 conversion. Approx 1300 lbs useful load with empty 3200, gross 4500 vs empty 4200 gross 5500 on the McKinnon. Single engine power to weight ratio also almost identical at 21 lbs per hp single engine.

Rajay, I had that very conversation with a friend in California that does engine conversions on various airplanes and have a continental/lycoming family business. Quoting him for having done Aero commanders conversions from the GO-480 to a straight IO-540, the performance was disappointing because of the loss of prop efficiency with the gear case. Now if you wanted to do IGO-540 conversion, that would be awesome, fit the same mount and cowling. Engineering would have to figure out what the weak part of the system is for 350hp on the widgeon.
mdwflyer
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 8:41 pm

Re: From the beginning, starting with C/N 1201,

Postby mdwflyer » Sun Mar 16, 2014 5:14 pm

Image
mdwflyer
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 8:41 pm

Re: From the beginning, starting with C/N 1201,

Postby MrWidgeon » Sun Mar 16, 2014 10:13 pm

Are they doing some cleaning or did they finally find a buyer ?

Bill
In water flying attitude is everything
User avatar
MrWidgeon
 
Posts: 893
Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2009 8:48 am
Location: Idaho, USA

Re: From the beginning, starting with C/N 1201,

Postby Rajay » Mon Mar 17, 2014 3:01 am

mdwflyer wrote:Rajay, I had that very conversation with a friend in California that does engine conversions on various airplanes and have a continental/lycoming family business. Quoting him for having done Aero commanders conversions from the GO-480 to a straight IO-540, the performance was disappointing because of the loss of prop efficiency with the gear case. Now if you wanted to do IGO-540 conversion, that would be awesome, fit the same mount and cowling. Engineering would have to figure out what the weak part of the system is for 350hp on the widgeon.

I assume that you meant "the loss of prop efficiency with the loss of the gear [reduction] case..." but while that may be true from a purely technical point of view, I also consider the facts that there are fewer and fewer shops still around to support, maintain, or overhaul the old, geared engines - and fewer still pilots properly trained to fly them these days, to be significant factors in regard to choosing a "good" engine for such a conversion.

The geared Lycomings have a nasty tendency to eat themselves prematurely if for example the pilot allows the prop to overrun the engine, such as by pulling the power back too quickly. And that's on top of a significantly lower TBO in the first place. As I recall, the 350 hp IG0-540 used in the Aero Commander 680F had a TBO of only 1,200 hours - and was usually lucky to make that. (Besides which it may be the rarest of all Lycoming engines ever built - I'm not aware of it being used in any other aircraft!) There's also the fact that even the Lycoming factory doesn't really support those old, geared engines any more.

The 300 hp IO-540 Lycomings that I have in mind are relatively simple, direct-drive engines with a 2,000 hour TBO, and are still in widespread, common usage. They wouldn't have a "prop efficiency" any worse than any of the other direct-drive Widgeon conversions, such as the Franklin Gander's 260 hp IO-470's (and a few 285 or 300 hp IO-520's) or the McDermott 260 hp IO-470 engines, but they would have the higher end of that horsepower spectrum still without the weight, complexity, and maintenance issues of the turbocharged TIO-540 Magnums. Like the Magnums, though, they could be enclosed in slimmer cowlings than the ones used by McKinnon for the GO-480-powered Super Widgeons, which would mean less drag, too.

Image
This looks like an IO-540-K1G5D to me, out of a Piper PA-32-300 or PA-32R-300; the offset fuel servo is because of clearance issues and an intake filter mounted inside the left side of the cowling. As I recall, the difference between the -K1A5 and -K1G5 was the fuel pump, an AC diaphragm fuel pump like this one versus a rotary, constant-displacement pump in the other. I'd also prefer the version without the dual mag (code D), a -K1G5 for example, but with a centerline, aft-mounted fuel servo - the front mounted fuel injection servos on some versions are great for ram air inductons, but they might suck up too much water on a seaplane....

That's just my opinion after 27+ years as a pilot and A&P. I suppose that if I'm ever able to actually build such a Widgeon conversion, other than just for myself that is, you certainly don't have to buy one if you don't think it's worth a darn. I'd still be willing to give you a ride, however...! ;)
Last edited by Rajay on Mon Mar 17, 2014 12:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Rajay
 
Posts: 391
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 6:07 pm
Location: The Southern Part of Heaven

Re: From the beginning, starting with C/N 1201,

Postby mdwflyer » Mon Mar 17, 2014 4:45 am

MrWidgeon wrote:Are they doing some cleaning or did they finally find a buyer ?

Bill


It is certainly dusty...

Rajay, what I am enjoying about the widgeon adventure is the 1000 ways of doing everything on it. All the conversions have +/- about them, I had initial thoughts about what I "really" wanted in a widgeon (in my case, legal useful load). I am on a different path than what I started with, will see how it turns out. I think a clean IO-540 installation on a McKinnon airframe could be really slick. Take what you have and make the most of it :mrgreen:

Mark
mdwflyer
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 8:41 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Grumman G-44 Widgeon Reference Archive



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Help keep this forum ad-free - please Donate


This free, ad-free forum is hosted by ForumLaunch